Streets categorisation proposed
The Malta Environment and Planning Authority is proposing the categorising of streets in urban conservation areas into four classes depending on the architectural value, quality and condition of buildings’ facades.
The proposals were this morning presented to several non-governmental organisations for consultation and next week they will be presented to local councils.
Mepa is proposing dividing the streets in urban conservation areas categories A, B+, B or C. A would include streets with the highest quality buildings with strong historical value and unique architecture (like churches and convents) and C the lowest quality where there has been some form of redevelopment but where there is still an element of quality architecture.
The categorisation was done on a street basis except when specific buildings, like chapels, deserved an A classification. The categories deal with facades and do not go into the buildings’ interiors.
Streets that fall in categories A will be protected against changes in facades and no additional floors can be constructed. In the case of B+ buildings, the facade will remain untouched but additional floors may be considered and in B buildings minor alterations to the facade may also be considered. In the case of C classifications, buildings may be considered for demolition but the replacement building must respect the rest of the streetscape.
The categorisation of looks into urban conservation areas in four of Malta’s local plans: the South Malta Local Plan, the Marsaxlokk Bay Local Plan, the Central Malta Local Plan and the North West Local Plan. Mepa chairman Austin Walker explained that this categorisation – that was included in the local plans for Gozo and the North Harbour – will provide tools for enforcement and continuity in the processing of applications.
3 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
joe felice pace
Dec 2nd 2008, 18:45
One hopes that this will not be another "rule" which is more respected in the exception than in the rule.
What MEPA should also be looking into is the protection of third parties in the case of damage sustained in the development of adjoining sites. As things stand, MEPA just tells you to have recourse to the Courts. It will not lift a finger on your behalf.
Any reform that does not include such a provision will prolong the sufferings of so many third parties as has happened all over those places where the so-called "development" has been made at the expense of others.
philip pace
Dec 2nd 2008, 16:45
Would this include our 'STATE OF THE ART' pavements that our planners don't know if they exist or not as they are concerned only with more popular things such as buildings, chapels, facades and roads.
The pedestrian is always at the end of line.
Joseph v. Grech
Dec 2nd 2008, 16:39
I think it is rather amusing (if not downright hilarious) that MEPA should recommend this approach. Why make the street, rather than the individual building, the deciding factor? There are hardly any streets in Malta that have not had sacrilegious construction alterations added to at east a number of buildings in them; more oftern than not whole buildings have been pulled down and abominable multiple garage units have been built instead - or new 'modern' buildings which resemble shoe-boxes rather than pleasant architectural structures.
Mepa is now attempting to start afresh...and this is a good sign. But what it proposes to do gives the lie to its intentions. One surely cannot condemn a single building simply because it is built in a god-forsaken (or rather Mepa-forsaken) area. Prime Minister please note.